Holman v. Future Growth, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS JOHNATHAN HOLMAN and MARCELLA WARNER HOLMAN, Plaintiffs, Case No. 24-cv-1012-EFM-TJJ v. FUTURE GROWTH, LLC and STUGA, LLC, Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Movant James Linlor (“Linlor”), proceeding pro se, has filed a Motion for Leave to File a Brief as Amicus Curiae (ECF No. 23). Linlor states he has additional critical information that needs to be submitted into the record and requests leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in opposition to Plaintiffs’ pending motion for protective order (ECF No. 19). Plaintiffs’ motion requests entry of a protective order prohibiting the parties from using discovery materials and testimony obtained in this case in Linlor’s related case, Linlor v. Holman, et al., Case 24-cv-1001DDC-GEB. Linlor is the principal owner and sole LLC member of Defendants Future Growth, LLC and STUGA, LLC. Defendants are represented by counsel and have already filed a response opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for protective order. Plaintiffs oppose Linlor’s motion for leave to file his proposed amicus brief. “Federal courts have discretion in allowing participation as amicus curiae.”1 Courts 1 N.M. Oncology & Hematology Consultants, Ltd. v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., 994 F.3d 1166 , 1175 (10th Cir. 2021) (granting leave to file briefs as amicus curiae under Fed. R. App. P. 29(b)(3)). generally permit “participation as an amicus to brief and argue as a friend of the court upon a finding that the proffered information of amicus is useful or otherwise necessary to the administration of justice.”2 “Historically, amicus curiae is an impartial individual who suggests the interpretation and status of the law, gives information concerning it, and advises the Court in order that justice may be done, rather than to advocate a point of view so that a cause may be won by one party or another.”3 In determining whether to accept an amicus brief, courts consider, among other things, (1) whether the proposed amicus is a disinterested entity; (2) whether there is opposition to the entry of the amicus; (3) whether counsel is capable of making arguments without the assistance of an amicus; (4) the strength of the information and argument presented by the potential amicus curiae’s interests; and, perhaps most importantly (5) the usefulness of information and argument presented by the potential amicus curiae to the court.4 The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a motion for leave to file an amicus brief based solely upon the factor “whether the proposed amicus is a disinterested entity.”5 The Court finds the above factors weigh heavily against granting Linlor leave to file his proposed amicus brief in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for protective order. Linlor is far from disinterested or impartial. His two wholly owned limited liability companies are the only 2 Hammond v. City of Junction City, Kan., No. 00-2146-JWL, 2001 WL 1665374 , at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 17, 2001) (citations omitted). 3 Wildearth Guardians v. Lane, No. 12-118 LFG/KBM, 2012 WL 10028647 , at *2 (D.N.M. June 20, 2012) (quoting Cmty. Ass'n for Restoration of Env't (CARE) v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, 54 F. Supp. 2d 974 , 975 (E.D. Wash. 1999)). 4 Id. (quoting Ass'n of Am. Sch. Paper Suppliers v. U.S., 683 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1328 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2010)). 5 See Fischer v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 20-1399, 2021 WL 5458444 , at *7 n.6 (10th Cir. Nov. 23, 2021) (The author of the proposed amicus brief “should have disclosed his prior involvement in this litigation, and we reject the motion given that prior involvement.”). remaining defendants in this action. Moreover, Plaintiffs oppose entry of the amicus brief, and Defendants Future Growth, LLC and STUGA, LLC—through counsel hired by Linlor to represent the LLCs—have already timely filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for protective order. Linlor’s proposed amicus brief repeats arguments already articulated in Defendants’ response. Finally, most importantly, the Court finds the information and arguments presented in Linlor’s proposed amicus brief are not useful or helpful to the Court in ruling on Plaintiffs’ pending motion. His proposed amicus brief is not limited to arguments pertinent to the motion, but also attempts to raise collateral grievances against Plaintiffs and their counsel arising out of his separate pro se litigation. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Linlor’s Motion for Leave to File a Brief as Amicus Curiae (ECF No. 23) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated July 15, 2024, at Kansas City, Kansas. ees 7 Dames Teresa J. Fames U.S. Magistrate Judge